ORDER 1. THE APPELLANT IS A RETAILER/DEALER OF ASIAN PAINTS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE MANUFACTURER") SINCE 1986. IN, THE YEAR 1988, THE MANUFACTURER PROMOTED A CONCEPT OF "COLOUR WORLD", TO GIVE A WIDE CHOKE OF SHADES TO CUSTOMERS THROUGH DEALER-TINTING SYSTEM (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "DTS"), WHEREIN PREDETERMINED QUANTITIES OF COLOURANT ;(ALSO KNOWN AS "STAINERS”) ARE ADDED TO THE BASE PAINT THROUGH A COLOURANT DISPENSER TO ARRIVE, AT THE DESIRED SHADE. PAINTS AND VARNISHES ARE LEVIABLE AT SINGLE POINT TAX UNDER THE D.P. TRADE TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHAT THE MANUFACTURER SOLD WAS NOT FULLY PRODUCED AND WAS A BASE MATERIAL FOR PREPARING PAINT AND, THEREFORE, THE SALE MADE BY THE DEALER/ASSESSEE AFTER ADDING COLOURANTS TO THE BASE MATERIAL/PAINT AND THERE FORE WAS LIABLE TO PAY SALES TAX. THIS ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS CONFIRMED RIGHT UP TO THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD. 3. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE HIGH COURT IN TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 711 OF 2002. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS DECISION, THE TRADE TAX TRIBUNAL IN RAJDEEP BROS. V. COMMR. OF TRADE TAX1 TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHAT WAS SUPPLIED BY THE MANUFACTL1RER TO THE DEALER WAS PAINT ITSELF, ON WHICH THE TAX HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID AND THEREFORE THE DEALER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY SALES TAX AFRESH AFTER ADDING COLOURANTS TO THE WHITE PAINT/BASE MATERIAL AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, ANOTHER TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 1550 OF 2005 HAS BEEN FILED AND IS PENDING CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISTINGUISHED THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD. 4. IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY INCONSISTENCY OF VIEWS BY THE COORDINATE A BENCHES OF THE SAME HIGH COURT, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IMPUGNED BEFORE US AND REMIT THE CASE BACK TO THE HIGH COURT FOR A FRESH DECISION ALONG WITH TTR NO. 1550 OF 2005. 5. INTERVENTION IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANTS ARE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE HIGH COURT TO INTERVENE IN THE MATTER. 6. SINCE IN THIS CASE, NO EVIDENCE WAS LED. 1550 OF 2005. 5. INTERVENTION IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANTS ARE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE HIGH COURT TO INTERVENE IN THE MATTER. 6. SINCE IN THIS CASE, NO EVIDENCE WAS LED. BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES AND IN THE CASE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL SUBSEQUENTLY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LED, WE LEAVE IT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE HIGH COURT TO DECIDE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ALREADY ON RECORD OR REMAND THE CASE TO ENABLE THE PARTIES TO LEAD FURTHER EVIDENCE. 7. THE APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. NO COSTS.